Mark Levin tonight doesn't want to entertain if Ted Cruz is ineligible for the presidency because Ted's not a natural born citizen. To Levin the matter was
never in question: "it is a settled constitutional and statutory matter." As far as Levin is concerned, Cruz is a natural born citizen.
Like hell.
Levin must consider that his position must mean that Article II is being superfluous when it makes a distinction between natural born citizen and citizen:
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
As John Marshall, I believe, said, none of the language of the constitution can be considered superfluous. Or as Newt Gingrich once observed, even the commas carry meaning.
The main phrase is "No Person except a natural born Citizen shall be eligible to the Office of President".
Subordinate to this is the clause "or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution". This clause was for the practical reason having to do with the start-up of the new nation. To wit: the founders knew that many of themselves would run for the presidency to guide the young American republic, and would need to, but that none of themselves were "natural born" citizens. They were citizens, as is Ted Cruz, but not "natural born". The language of Article II was specifically designed to permit them to serve as president, but not Ted Cruz or any other not naturally born citizen person for the simple reason that in the case of Ted Cruz he was not a citizen at the time of the constitution's adoption.
The founders adopted the distinction between citizen and natural born citizen because they wanted the future of the country to rest more securely in the hands of leadership which was not divided in its loyalties. The chief loyalty to be wary of at the time was that of Loyalists, those "Americans" who were not in agreement with the break with Great Britain. They were quite numerous, and constituted an ongoing impediment to the success of the revolution. The founders imagined it possible that one of these might secure the presidency, and undo what they with enormous sacrifice had achieved. Hence the language making this less likely, if not impossible. With time, the danger passed, and only individuals born to a pair of citizens could rise to the presidency.
Fast forward to today. The whole argument over citizenship now falsely puts the priority on place of birth when lineage was meant to be paramount. The discussion suffers from amnesia. John McCain was eligible for the presidency in 2008 not because he was born in a US territory but because both his parents were US citizens. That he says otherwise is immaterial. He knows as little about it as the rest. Unfortunately, Barack Obama did not meet the requirement of Article II, but because the priority was falsely placed on his place of origin, a terrible precedent has been set. Frankly, his entire presidency is illegitimate because one of his parents was not a citizen. And after almost seven years in office, he has amply proven that his loyalties lie elsewhere than with the constitution and the American republic as we've known it.
Neither does Ted Cruz meet the requirement of Article II. It is immaterial where he was born. What is material is that one of his parents wasn't a citizen at the time of his birth. He is ineligible to be president, though otherwise well qualified he may be.
Same for Marco Rubio, who was born to Cuban immigrants before they became citizens.
It is assumed that Donald Trump's mother, a Scottish immigrant, was a citizen by the time of Donald's birth in 1946, but maybe The Donald should look into it.
